Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Epsilon/Agenda"

Line 1: Line 1:
Next meeting to be held on Apr 18 2012 over Skype
+
Next meeting to be held on Sept 11 2012 over Skype
  
* Discuss restructuring the Epsilon plugins into more fine-grained features
+
* 1.0 Release
** Have a core feature that does not even depend on EMF
+
** I can't build the Epsilon interim update site using 4.2 (cannot parse feature.xml from one of the GMF source plugins)
** Be able to install Epsilon in the absence of GMF
+
** Removing the offending feature solves this problem but then I get JDK-related errors
** Currently the Epsilon core feature depends on HUTN which is not included in the core feature through the ANT task (we can either make all dependencies to non-core tasks optional or split tasks into many plugins) see bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=376293
+
** Do we want to resctructure Epsilon features before releasing 1.0?
* Discuss the graduation process
+
* 1.0 Distributions
** Epsilon needs to move out of EMFT as it's an incubator
+
** Build them on 4.2 or 3.8 or both?
** Move to EMF/MMT (ex-M2M)/investigate aiming for a project directly under Eclipse Modelling?
+
** We need Emfatic. It's in better shape now but still need to schedule a release review for it
* Discuss documenting/automating the (interim) release process. Might be useful if we can share the workload for preparing new releases.
+
* Decide on what to do with action items carried over (i.e. create enhancement requests in the bugzilla?)
+
* Go through open bugs
+

Revision as of 03:18, 11 September 2012

Next meeting to be held on Sept 11 2012 over Skype

  • 1.0 Release
    • I can't build the Epsilon interim update site using 4.2 (cannot parse feature.xml from one of the GMF source plugins)
    • Removing the offending feature solves this problem but then I get JDK-related errors
    • Do we want to resctructure Epsilon features before releasing 1.0?
  • 1.0 Distributions
    • Build them on 4.2 or 3.8 or both?
    • We need Emfatic. It's in better shape now but still need to schedule a release review for it

Back to the top